Graphic by Anjali Rao-Herel ’22
BY REILLY DENNEDY ’23
Mount Holyoke plans to go smoke-free in 2020. Supporting every student on campus means making nuanced, thoughtful policies regarding smoking on campus. Eliminating cigarette filter pollution and cigarette smell is possible without an outright cigarette ban.
Our campus should approach cigarette smoking with open-mindedness and compassion. Cigarettes have been systematically marketed to low-income individuals who, many times, do not have the counseling resources needed to quit. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), many smokers are willing to try, or have already tried, to quit.
There are many students afraid or unwilling to utilize the resources provided through the Alcohol and Drug Awareness Center. Many students, especially at a high achieving school like Mount Holyoke, feel that they can handle their problems alone, even when it’s getting out of hand. Others are afraid to open up to a professional for the first time. While there may not be actions the administration can take to change the minds of these individuals, there should be an acknowledgement that drug counseling is an invasive process that some people aren’t ready for. Policy must take the experiences of all students into account.
Even with counseling resources available, quitting smoking is a time-consuming and emotionally challenging process. Students who smoke do not deserve to be punished for having an addiction. Many of the attitudes people display towards smoking and people who smoke are similar to the ideas they have about those who struggle with addictions to other substances: people are knowingly damaging their health and this makes them bad. The belief that health is connected to morality is a problematic underlying attitude in many of these policies.
An outright smoking ban would prohibit smoking everywhere on campus. It is important to address the inverse of this: that smoking would be equally allowed everywhere. If the goal is to contain secondhand smoke and litter, this policy would only make matters worse.
“The policy would just force smokers into their cars or dorms which would be worse for everyone. We have a huge campus. It’s not hard to make space for everyone,” Lena Sigel ’22 said.
As much as it may upset non-smokers, advocating for smoking areas on campus is the most effective way to keep smoke away from those who do not like it. Providing designated smoking areas and smoking halls would give smokers a safe, warm place without the threat of Campus Police finding them or getting frostbite from standing outside in the winter. These locations could be well-utilized and popular among smokers. If these areas also have cigarette receptacles, it would reduce litter around campus. Those concerned about inhaling secondhand smoke could choose to not go into the designated smoking areas or live in smoking halls.
Just as it is important not to punish people for their coping mechanisms and addictions, it is important that those with asthma have buildings which are guaranteed to be safe for them. While current dorms are supposedly all smoke-free, it is no secret that many ignore this rule. The substance-free LLC is an option in Torrey, but it can be inaccessible to some due to its location. There also may be students who do not want to commit to an entirely substance-free building, but who are asthmatic and unable to breathe when those around them smoke.
I propose a smoke- free LLC more centrally located. As all students would have to apply to this LLC, it would ensure enforcement of the policy. It may seem extreme, but having a dorm sensitive to allergies is important if the administration actually wants to keep students safe.
I believe in supporting the needs of all students on campus. This happens through thoughtful policies which achieve desired goals rather than punishing those who smoke. The proposed ban would be damaging to those who do not smoke and distressing to those who do.